If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should a secession measure asking the state to pursue secession (basically, the so-called "Yes California" secession initiative) be successful at the ballot in California in 2018 and / or 2019 I would withdraw to Idaho and wait for the inevitable (state would need to surrender, officials involved would need to be jailed, etc).

Some of the pro-secession types in California have stated that so long as they don't fire a shot or commit any acts of violence while they carry out their attempts at secession then they cannot possibly be construed as having committed insurrection (and thus won't trigger the Insurrection Act). But history tells us different: merely when "the laws of the United States were opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," that was sufficient for the President to make a proclamation (and ultimately for Congress and the President to agree on passing an act of Congress) to declare that there had been insurrection in the United States -- an insurrection which, after a long and bloody Civil War, was eventually formally declared to be at an end as a result of a Presidential proclamation of President Andrew Johnson.

For this reason, 18 USC Sec 2383 does apply not only to pro-secession individuals who might commit violent acts against the federal government, but it can also be applied to officials (and others) who have participated in, or facilitated, a secession effort. The language of 18 USC Sec. 2383 is as follows:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

That's right -- officials that directly involve themselves in this will be banned for life from holding office. Could be that this is what caused people in the Republican party in Texas to end up voting not to proceed with secession efforts?

And that got the crybaby lib dems very mad, and gave them hurt feels, because they realized that what they are doing is illegal.

All it will take is President Trump (or alternatively Congress and President Trump, depending on how it plays out) declaring (either by Presidential proclamation, or more likely by an act of Congress) that CA's secession is in fact not only null and void, but that those officials who support it are engaging in insurrection as defined by U.S. Code.

Here's an example of what such an act of Congress might look like which would accomplish this objective:

"Whereas by proclamation of February 20, 2017, the President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in him by the Constitution and the laws, declared that the laws of the United States were opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the State of California by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, and whereas it is declared that a state of insurrection in California does exist due to secession efforts, and that certain officials in some parts of California are participating in and facilitating this insurrection, this Act does resolve and declare that it is necessary to take steps to end the secession effort using the provisions of 18 USC 2383 and ensure officials who have facilitated it shall be held incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Of course you could replace "February 20, 2017" with some other future date. My point being is this is perfectly feasible.

It is entirely possible that such language could pass Congress and be signed by the President in late 2018 or early 2019.

The Insurrection Act can be used for situations where Californians take up arms against federal troops, for example. Or just if the situation just gets so out of control that the President would need to send in federal troops to secure surrender paperwork from officials in Sacramento. See Section 332 of the Insurrection Act. President Trump can actually use that section without even needing the permission of Congress - it wasn't written to require Congress's permission. Worst case scenario, but the law is on the books and nobody can claim it doesn't exist.

Just more sour grapes from the same crowd that were going to move to Canada if Trump won. Has anyone "actually" moved to Canada?

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

I say YES let them go, wait a few years for the whining people to move in and build a wall and a dam, take them off the electric grid and see how they do. They can then make Whoopie Goldberg president of their crap hole. Don't forget to charge them 35% on their exports either.